The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Events of 4 October in Parliment Buildings

Mr Speaker: I wish to refer to two points of order raised yesterday. In a reply to Rev Dr William McCrea, I directed his attention to Standing Orders in respect of exclusion motions. I should, of course, have directed him to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The precise reference is section 30(5)(a).
Mr Attwood, on a further point of order, asked me whether I would make correspondence from the Chief Constable available to the House. I have taken further advice on the matter, and I have placed a copy of the letter from the Chief Constable in the Assembly Library.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that the Chief Constable, in his correspondence to you, took nothing away from the necessity for such a search of the Sinn Féin/IRA offices but merely from the nature of the operation and the number of police officers deployed?

Mr Speaker: The Member refers to the content of the letter. It is fair to say that the letter speaks for itself.

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage

Mr Speaker: I have received a letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in respect of the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill. I wish to draw the letter to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:
"We are writing to request your permission to withdraw the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill scheduled for Tuesday 8 October.
We regret that, due to the current exceptional circumstances, we will not be available for the second reading of the Bill.
We are aware of the significance of this Bill and believe it is right that we should take it through the Assembly." —
Order.
"We apologise for being unable to be in the Assembly today and would very much appreciate if the Bill could be re-scheduled at the earliest opportunity."

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to rush a piece of legislation to the House, admit that the legislation will not even go through the normal consultative process and then snub the House by refusing to come along to listen to the views of the House on this controversial legislation that is designed to add to their empire, to the quangos in Northern Ireland and to the cost of administration?

Mr Speaker: I am somewhat puzzled by the Member’s remarks because they bear no relation to what I have just read out. In case the Member was not listening or is unclear, he said that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do not intend to come to hear the House. The letter actually says that they wish to withdraw the Second Stage because they do wish to be here to hear the views of the House. I trust that that is clear. What is being requested is that the Bill’s Second Stage not be moved today but be moved at a later stage. It is not to be moved today because the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot be here. I trust that I have made clear what the letter says as distinct from what the Member said.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Fantasy-land ideas continue in the light of that announcement. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister think that their junior Ministers are incompetent? I am sure that you will confirm that there is nothing to stop the junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister from proposing the Bill. They have filled in previously for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Is it not true that the Bill was rushed, as my Colleague Sammy Wilson has said? The Bill received no consultation at all with the relevant vested interests that must be consulted. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are probably so embarrassed by their lack of preparation that they are not in a position to come to the House today.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. In respect of the Member’s comments about junior Ministers, they will speak for themselves, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may speak for themselves —

Mr Nigel Dodds: Then let them speak.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would simply draw attention to the fact that the previous point of order raised by his Colleague was to the effect that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would not wish to be here to hear the Assembly. I simply draw attention to that other point of order. However, I am here to address points of order of a procedural kind, not order of a political kind.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What will be the procedure with my amendment once suspension kicks in later this week?

Mr Speaker: I can only refer to the first part of the Member’s question as far as order is concerned. At this juncture, I would consider his reasoned amendment still to stand for the present. There is simply a rescheduling of the time at which it would be taken. However, as far I am concerned, his reasoned amendment still stands.
His question is particularly appropriate because this is the first occasion on which there has been such a reasoned amendment to a Second Stage. Therefore it is worthwhile putting on record that this technical device to cause a Bill to fall will remain available to be used if the Member wishes to proceed with it when a further date for the Second Stage is scheduled.

Point of Order: Booking of Press Suite

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Department to book the Press Suite for eight hours so that no other party in the House can use it today?

Mr Speaker: Yes. It is entirely in order for Members of the Assembly to book facilities, and it is not uncommon that it is done for a day, whether in respect of the Long Gallery, press facilities or other facilities. The matter was drawn to my attention, and I made some suggestions for other, I hope appropriate, facilities that may be able to be made available. I understand there is a degree of pressure as far as accommodation is concerned.

Review of Post-Primary Education: Report on Responses to Consultation

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the review of the post-primary education report on responses to consultation.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The publication of the Burns Report a year ago launched the second phase of the review that began with research by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith into the effects of our selective system of secondary education. Our thanks are due to them for their extensive research, which provided the basis for the work of the post-primary review body.
We also owe a great debt of gratitude to Gerry Burns and the other members of the review body, and I want to place on record my thanks for their important work in producing such a helpful and thought-provoking report.
The review body’s report was far-reaching and challenging, and it stimulated thinking across the education sector and beyond about the full range of issues associated with post-primary education. It has been the catalyst for one of the biggest public debates seen in recent years — certainly the biggest in education.
When publishing the review body’s report for consultation, I invited comments on the proposals, suggestions for modifications to the proposals and suggestions for alternative arrangements. I extended the consultation period until 28 June 2002 to ensure that there was adequate time for everyone to consider the very complex and interrelated issues raised by the review of post-primary education.
From the outset I was determined to seek comments and views from as wide a range of interests as possible. To ensure that all sections of our community had the opportunity to respond, my Department conducted an unprecedented consultation with five strands. I sincerely thank the civil servants in my Department who assisted me throughout the process. Their work was of the highest quality, and I appreciate it very much.
I held 28 meetings with key interests between February and July to hear at first hand their views on the review body’s proposals and their suggestions for future post-primary arrangements. I invited written submissions, and over 1,300 responses were received from our education partners, schools, churches, higher and further education and training, business, political representatives, the voluntary and community sector, human rights and equality interests, and the public.
A detailed response booklet, together with supporting information in the form of a video and consultation pack, was issued to all schools, institutes of further and higher education, training organisations and a range of community groups. Booklets were returned by 510 schools. That represents 40% of our schools and constitutes the largest ever response from schools to a consultation exercise conducted by my Department.
A household response form was issued to each household seeking the public’s views on the Burns proposals. Over 200,000 household response forms were returned, which represented 16% of the adult population. Approximately one fifth of the people who returned the forms took the time to include additional comments. A survey was also carried out in a representative sample of 2,000 homes. The views of young people aged 14 to 19 were sought through a series of focus groups facilitated by the Northern Ireland Youth Forum.
I met the Committee for Education to discuss the arrangements for the consultation generally and also to discuss detailed aspects of the video and support materials. The Committee made helpful comments, many of which were incorporated into the materials. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Danny Kennedy, and the members of the Committee, for their help. Last April, Sammy Wilson tabled a motion for an Assembly debate on the review body’s report. I thank him for initiating one of the best debates in the House on any issue. Members made thoughtful and considered contributions, and I listened carefully to all the views expressed.
Throughout the past year I have emphasised repeatedly my determination that the consultation on the post-primary review would be open and transparent. To ensure that it was, I made a commitment to produce a report drawing together the views expressed in the responses to the consultation and to put that before the public for everyone to see and consider. The report published today fulfils that commitment. Copies have been made available to MLAs, and the full report is available on my Department’s web site. Copies will be issued next week to all schools, our education partners and other organisations that responded to the consultation.
In their responses to the consultation, many organisations and individuals welcomed the opportunity afforded by the review to give their views on post-primary education. Many also commented favourably about the way in which the consultation was conducted. The consultation generated a healthy public debate. I have no doubt that that contributed to the impressive response received to the different strands. The debate was lively, sometimes passionate, but generally mature, well informed and constructive.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair.)
I know that our partners in the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), the Transferor Representatives’ Council, the Northern Catholic bishops and many other organisations consulted widely with their members in formulating their responses.
Many schools held meetings to discuss the issues with staff and parents. Some also included pupils, to ensure that their responses reflected the views of the entire school community. There were many contributions to the debate in the newspapers, which played an important part in ensuring that the wider public was kept informed about the range of opinions and arguments on all the issues.
It is always easier to be critical of someone else’s proposals than to produce your own. I was particularly encouraged, therefore, that so many organisations devoted considerable time and energy to thinking through how our current arrangements could be improved. In their responses, they suggested modifications to the review body’s proposals or outlined alternative arrangements. I thank all of them for the time and commitment that they invested in the review.
My Department analysed the submissions over the summer months and has summarised the responses from all the strands in the consultation report published today. The report sets out the responses to each of the main recommendations in the review body’s report and includes other issues raised by respondents. The report provides a full picture of the consultation responses but has been kept to a manageable length to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In the interests of openness and transparency, anyone who wishes to delve further into the responses to the consultation can access my Department’s web site, where they will find copies of the main submissions received, along with further statistical tables analysing the responses from the household response forms, the omnibus survey and the detailed response booklet.
Three key messages emerged from the consultation: the demand for change; the obligation to focus on the needs of the child as a learner; and the emerging consensus on key issues. The responses to the consultation demonstrate a clear and unequivocal demand for change. Many respondents acknowledged the achievements of the current system but argued that it was not adequate or acceptable for the future. They criticised the current arrangements as unfair and failing to meet adequately the needs of learners. They pointed to the skewing of the primary school curriculum in favour of preparing children for the transfer test and to the detrimental and stressful impact that it has on children with the damage to their self-esteem and the creation of more losers than winners.
They argued that the current system perpetuates social and class divisions and militates against equality of opportunity — particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was also a widespread view that the system is inflexible and does not recognise the differing needs of children.
Almost all responses to the consultation supported the abolition of the transfer test. Those who wish to retain academic selection also accepted that the transfer test and associated coaching are unsatisfactory and that change is needed. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the current post-primary arrangements. The feeling is that they do not meet the needs of children and are not adequate for our society and economy in the twenty-first century. There must be change, and the status quo is not an option.
The second message arising from the consultation is the obligation on all of us to focus on the needs of the child as a learner. Human rights and equality obligations demand that the rights of the child are taken fully into account in the post-primary review and that the links between education and other human rights are reinforced. There was almost universal support for the guiding principles proposed by the review body, and particularly for the first two. They stated that each young person should be valued equally and that all young people should be enabled to develop their talents to the full.
There was a widespread view among the main education partners that the prime focus must be on the needs of the child as a learner. Children develop at different rates and have a wide range of talents, aptitudes and learning abilities. A consistent theme in comments about future arrangements was that they should ensure that education provision meets the needs of individual pupils. Society and the economy in the twenty-first century require a broader range of knowledge and skills than in the last century, and new post-primary arrangements must offer a wide range of curricular options, promote parity of esteem for all curricular choices and pathways and provide flexibility between them.
The third message arising from the consultation is that there is an emerging consensus on key issues, including the problems of the current system and the changes that are needed. In some quarters the debate has been crudely and inaccurately presented as one between two clearly opposing camps. The reality is very different. It is clear from the responses to the consultation that there are significant areas of consensus. In other areas there is agreement over the aims and desired outcomes, but differences over how they can be best realised.
While there was little support in the consultation for the review body’s model in its entirety, varying degrees of support were expressed for individual recommendations. There was a strong consensus on a number of the review body’s proposals, including the guiding principles, the abolition of the transfer test, the development of a pupil profile — although views differed on what that should contain and how it should be used — and the need for greater co-operation and collaboration among schools.
The predominant view was that academic selection should be ended, although some support for this proposal was subject to certain conditions being met. Most of those closely involved in education, the education partners, primary and secondary schools and the churches, supported the ending of academic selection. However, there was also substantial opposition to this proposal, particularly from the grammar school sector and the majority of those responding to the household response form.
There was little support for two of the proposed admissions criteria, proximity to the pupil’s home and having a parent on the teaching staff of the school, and for collegiates as proposed in the review body’s report. The consultation has demonstrated consensus on the need for a common curriculum to age 14 and for 14 years as a more appropriate age for parents and pupils to consider and make choices about the curricular options or pathways that best suit the interests, needs and abilities of the young people. There was agreement that new arrangements should offer flexibility on curricular choice and be able to accommodate changes of direction by young people.
Many responses also argued for a range of approaches so that post-primary arrangements could reflect local needs and circumstances. Throughout the review I have consistently said that I want to build consensus about the new arrangements. Building consensus remains the best way in which to make progress, and the considerable consensus demonstrated by the responses to the consultation provides a sound platform from which to move the review forward.
I want now to turn to the transfer test. The consultation has clearly shown that there is overwhelming support for the abolition of the test, and that requires a positive response. There are those who fear that the Department will move too quickly; others fear that we will move too slowly. I am aware that many parents are anxious about the possible effects of change on their children. However, there will be no chaos in the education system, nor will children suffer as guinea pigs during transition to new arrangements. Change will be implemented in a considered, planned manner, which will lead to real improvement in our education system.
The current arrangements, including the transfer test, must remain in place until decisions are taken on the post-primary review. The existing system must be managed, and the education of children currently in schools must be protected while the Department plans new arrangements.
The review body suggested that ending the transfer test in 2002 would be the earliest date on which changes could be introduced, and that would be subject to the outcome of the consultation process that the Department has just completed. To ensure that schools, parents and pupils know where they stand, I can confirm that the transfer test will take place in November 2003. Those pupils who are currently in primary six will, therefore, sit the test next year, and they will transfer to post-primary education in September 2004 under the current arrangements.
Although the transfer test must be held next year for practical reasons, I make it clear to the Assembly and to the people that it has no place in the future of education here. I am firmly resolved that it shall be abolished. It is unfair and damaging to many pupils, and it has adversely affected too many young lives. The consultation has confirmed the overwhelming support for its abolition.
Throughout its history the 11-plus branded most of our children failures: the real failure was not the children but the 11-plus itself. That injustice must be brought to an end. I am, therefore, announcing today that the transfer test will be abolished. I am determined that this will happen as soon as is practical, and my proposals for the way forward will ensure that the 11-plus is consigned to history at the earliest possible date.
That brings me to the next stages of the review. It is important that everyone, including myself, takes time to consider the responses to the consultation process in detail. I want to hear the views of key stakeholders in education on the responses to the consultation, and, in the light of my decision on the transfer test, on how best to progress the post-primary review before I introduce my proposals on the next steps. Any new arrangements and their implementation must be shaped by the responses to the consultation and must build on emerging consensus.
The views of MLAs are important in the process. I have tabled a motion to enable the Assembly to take note of the publication of the consultation report: that motion will be debated here next Tuesday. I had intended to discuss the report with the Committee for Education on Thursday, but that will be rearranged as early as possible. I look forward to both discussions.
Our main education partners must be fully engaged in the process of developing and implementing proposals for new post-primary arrangements. That is crucial. I have, therefore, planned a series of meetings with key education interests to seek their views on the responses to the consultation process and on how best to take forward the next stages of the review. Those meetings will take place with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (the Council for Irish-Medium Education), the Governing Bodies Association of Voluntary Grammar Schools, the teachers’ unions, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the Northern Catholic bishops, and the Transferor Representatives’ Council, representing the main Protestant churches.
The first meeting has been arranged for 5 November, and meetings will continue throughout November. In determining the way forward, I will carefully consider the views expressed by our education partners at those meetings, along with the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education and the responses to the consultation.
I will announce my proposals for the next stages of the review in December this year.
My objective in advancing the post-primary review is to create an education system that raises standards for all pupils, is fair to all pupils, and provides a modern education system for the twenty-first century. The consultation provided three key messages: there is widespread demand for change, which cannot be ignored; there is an obligation on all of us to focus on the needs of the child as a learner, which must be paramount in considering future arrangements; and there is emerging consensus on key issues, which provides us with a platform on which to build new arrangements.
If we keep the focus on the needs of children as learners, we can build on emerging consensus to achieve the objective of creating a modern, fair education system that enables all young people to fulfil their potential, irrespective of their backgrounds or circumstances. That is a truly worthy objective, and I will work towards it with the help of our education partners, Assembly Members and the Committee for Education as we take the post-primary education review to the next stages.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important discussion on the publication of the responses to consultation. However, it is regrettable that the document was not made available until half an hour before the Assembly met. It is even more regrettable that the Minister’s statement was not made available to Members until 10.30 am. If the Minister wishes everyone to participate in the discussion, Members ought to have been given the opportunity to read those documents.
This is an opportunity to question the Minister, and the Committee for Education wishes to consider the report in detail. As the Minister said, he and his officials will meet the Committee to examine the outcome of the review.
Can the Minister confirm that the topic of discussion with key stakeholders will be the results of the consultation rather than proposals on the way forward? Does he intend to consult further on any proposals for the way forward? Will he make a commitment to bring any proposals to the Committee for consideration? Does he acknowledge that the Burns Report’s proposals are not acceptable as a way forward? When the Minister issued the household response form, he said —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I realise that it is important that the Member asks those questions as Chairperson of the Committee for Education. However, the Member is asking his fifth question, and he must conclude his questions.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to make as many questions as possible available to the Minister. It is crucial that he has an opportunity to answer them.
I refer to the results that were published in today’s report on responses to consultation, in particular to responses to the question of whether academic selection should be abolished. Will the Minister accept that the majority of parents, teachers and all those who were consulted rejected the abolition of academic selection?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A LeasCheann Comhairle. On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there any guidance on Members’ asking questions?
I recall the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel recently being stopped when taking much less than three and a half minutes.

Ms Jane Morrice: I do not normally take points of order during questions to a Minister, but this debate is obviously very important: that is not to imply that other debates are not. The normal procedure is that Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons are given slightly longer for questions than others. Mr Kennedy has had ample opportunity to put his question, and the Minister will now respond.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken the unusual step of accepting a point of order from a ministerial Colleague of the Minister —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Mr Kennedy, if you put your point of order, I shall accept it now.

Mr Danny Kennedy: My point of order is that it is the normal courtesy of the House to a Chairperson. Given the time constraints that Members —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I have given that response to Ms de Brún’s point of order, and we shall go ahead exactly as I said because of the time constraints. The Minister will respond.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I implore you to allow the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee some opportunity —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: —to ask relevant questions —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: — not only on behalf of his Committee but also on behalf of the political party which he represents.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Given the time constraints to which the Member has referred, he will appreciate that this is time-wasting. I am aware that the Chairperson has put five questions, and it is important that the Minister be given the opportunity, which he has requested, to respond to them.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I consider the next stage of this process very important indeed. At the beginning of the process many people — not officials in my Department — said to me that the house would come down on top of me like a tonne of bricks if I tried to deal with the 11-plus. We moved through a process of research conducted by two eminent professors. The review body chaired by Gerry Burns carried out an incredible amount of work, and the consultation process was of vital importance.
The most striking feature of that process was the willingness of all those involved in education, on all sides of the debate, to be positive and constructive on how we move forward. It is a mood that I should like to sustain through what I consider to be the next stage of the process.
Many MLAs will appreciate that it is better that we move forward in a spirit of co-operation because this is about children. It is about the future of all our children, not just my children or Danny Kennedy’s children, and we have a responsibility to manage the process as best we can.
In answer to Mr Kennedy’s question, I intend to move forward sensibly, building on the good mood in education to deal with the important challenges before us. I shall not go to the education partners in the course of my November deliberations with a fait accompli. I shall continue to build consensus; and there is a good spirit abroad to do so.
I have clearly signalled to the Assembly that I shall come forward with my proposals at the end of that process. I wish to do so in co-operation with everyone, including the Committee for Education, which will have an opportunity to discuss the report, and those issues can be dealt with in debate here. I shall also meet with the Committee. Regarding further consultation on alternatives, I must say that the review body and my Department have already undertaken two broad consultation exercises. It is now time to take the review forward, working closely with the education partners to develop proposals that will take account of all the views expressed.
The need for change has been firmly established, and the majority now wishes to see proposals for new post-primary arrangements. Indeed, the Committee for Education, in the finalisation of its report into the matter, accepted that change was essential. Many respondents acknowledged the achievements of the current system of academic selection but argued that it was not adequate or acceptable for the future. The predominant view that emerged from consultation was that academic selection at the age of 11 should end.

Mr Danny Kennedy: That is nonsense.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Some support was dependent on certain conditions being met. I want to outline who was in favour.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Jane Morrice: Two exceptions have been made on points of order. If Members want to raise points of order, they must raise them after the questions to the Minister. Otherwise, the time will be eaten into.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Members should listen carefully to what I have to say. Those in favour were the five education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the five main teachers’ unions, the Catholic Heads Association, the Association of Head Teachers in Secondary Schools, two thirds of schools, the Northern Catholic bishops, the Transferor Representatives’ Council, the institutes of further and higher education that responded, the Confederation of British Industry, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women’s Coalition, the Workers’ Party, thirty of those people who responded to the household response form, the majority of the voluntary and community interests that responded, the Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Law Centre, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Council of Trade Unions, and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance.
Opposition came from the Governing Bodies Association, the Secondary Heads Association, one third of schools, two thirds of those people who responded to the household response form, rural interest groups, the UUP, the DUP, four district councils, the Institute of Directors, and the majority of 16 training organisations.
It is clear from the way that I have laid the report before the Assembly that this was a multi-stranded approach. It is totally wrong of Members to select the statistics that suit them and to ignore the rest.

A Member: Such hypocrisy.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: It was the Minister’s baby.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to the proposal for common admissions criteria. However, the majority of responses to the household response form, and in the omnibus survey, supported the proposal. The Member is being selective in identifying the responses that suit his and his party’s agenda.
I am the Minister of Education. It is my responsibility to be fair and objective, to consider the responses from all strands of the consultation, and to determine what is in the best interests of all of Northern Ireland’s children.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have ruled that points of order will be taken after the questions to the Minister. [Interruption]. Order. I am standing. I will not rule on that again.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I do not think that I have seen the Minister squirm so much since he was asked on ‘Newsnight’ whether he was a member of the IRA.
Does the Minister not agree that he has retreated from the position that he said he intended to see through during the lifetime of this Assembly? The 11-plus is to stay for the rest of this Assembly’s lifetime, and for a further two years.
Does he agree that he has been given a slap in the face, or — to use his parlance — a punishment beating, by the people? The majority of households have said that they oppose the central proposition of the Burns Report, that academic selection should be ended. The majority of teachers have said that academic selection should stay. Despite the gloss that the Minister has put on the figures, he has been comprehensively told, by all but the education mafia, that the people of Northern Ireland want academic selection to remain. According to his Department’s survey, more people have said that they want academic selection to stay than have said that they want the 11-plus to be abolished.
As he has given a commitment to the first group, will he also give a commitment to the second group that, in response to what the people have said, academic selection will be retained? Will he assure the House that he will not continue to squirm and try to avoid the conclusion that the people of Northern Ireland have come to?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ignore some of the nonsense that has been offered this morning.
The Member raised two issues. I have given a clear commitment to abolish the test and will be working with our education partners to determine a way forward to enable that to happen as soon as possible. Abolishing the test without new arrangements for transfer would create chaos within the system and cause anxiety and concern among pupils, parents, teachers and schools. I am not prepared to do that.
Some people will say that I am moving too fast; others will say that I am moving too slowly. I want to move at the right pace that enables me to work with education partners and determine arrangements that will allow change to be implemented in a planned and orderly way.
In relation to academic selection, it is just not good enough for people to select results from one strand and ignore everyone else’s opinions. I have been very forthright about this. The reality is that a majority of respondents to the household response form — 64% — did not support the end of academic selection. Those responding to the household response form constituted 16% of the adult population. Analysis shows that they included disproportionate numbers of those with children currently or previously at a grammar school. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.

Mr Tom Hamilton: So are the people.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Analysis shows that they included disproportionate numbers of those with children currently or previously at a grammar schools and those from the more prosperous areas of the North. Although that is an important body of opinion that must be taken into account, it cannot be construed as representing the views of the entire public. I have said all along that the consultation was multi-stranded and that reliance should not be placed on any single strand.
The public’s views were expressed in a variety of other ways through the responses of schools, representative organisations in the community and voluntary sectors, churches, political parties and education partners. I will be taking into account the public’s views as expressed through all strands of consultation, together with the other responses, in determining the best way forward.
Some people in the House may choose to exercise themselves on all those issues, but I appeal again to everyone on all sides of the House to recognise that children must be the central focus of our attention here. This is not about party political point-scoring or one-upmanship; it is about moving forward to face up to the challenges posed by the results of the consultation and by the unhappiness in society about the current arrangements. It is about sitting together in a positive and constructive spirit. That spirit exists outside this House, throughout the wide breadth of opinion within education. If that is the view, if people agree with it and are not prepared to challenge it, there is a huge responsibility on Members to add to and enhance that mood by continuing in a spirit of co-operation.

Ms Jane Morrice: I urge Members and the Minister to be as brief as possible, as many Members wish to put questions to the Minister.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I welcome the Minister’s comments on the transfer test. I am pleased that those comments recognise the SDLP’s long-held view on the matter. The consultation report also contains strong support for many of the SDLP’s other suggestions, such as the development of pupil profiles. The report shows a clear rejection of the collegiate system and a desire for it to be replaced by the development of co-operation among all secondary schools. We must build on the goodwill and the good work of educationalists, teachers and school governors.
Does the Minister accept that any society that is based on justice must have at its heart an education system that is based on "equality of opportunity"? However, that term does not appear in the consultation report. Will the Minister ensure that the next document on the review of post-primary education will not only contain the term "equality of opportunity" but will have the capacity to develop and deliver equality of opportunity for all our children?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: When are we likely to see a paper on the matter from the Department?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Mr Gallagher’s remarks contain nothing with which I can disagree. In fact, I agree with all of what he said. The whole concept of equality is vital, and it underpins the Good Friday Agreement. In our approach to that challenge, I have always been conscious that, when examining the minutiae of the faults in our education system, it is essential that everyone accept that a modern education system for the twenty-first century must be provided. That means that choice must be available for parents and children. I remind Members that the first two guiding principles proposed by the review body state that
"each young person should be valued equally; and all young people should be enabled to develop their talents to the full."
My commitment to equality is absolute. When will people see the next stage? I have made it clear to the Assembly today that I intend to introduce proposals in December. However, that will not happen until I have had critical discussions with education partners in the coming weeks. When the proposals are introduced, Tommy Gallagher and all Members who believe in a progressive approach will welcome that important change.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s announcement. Does the Minister agree that people, including the household survey respondents and the education bodies, have clearly expressed widespread support for an end to the 11-plus? That support demonstrates that there is a broad acceptance that the primary-school curriculum has traumatised and alienated many children, and created a two-tier system. The Minister, therefore, has an obligation to act on that broad consensus.
In a week during which shipbuilding appears to have ceased to be an industry here, during which the Minister has announced profound changes to the future of the education system, does the Minister agree that it is ironic that Unionists on the Benches opposite, who profess such a passionate interest in those subjects, are engaged in such an unseemly scramble — [Interruption].

Mr Danny Kennedy: Where is the question?

Mr Conor Murphy: I have asked the Minister whether he will agree with me.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Member should settle himself down.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Mr Murphy, I would appreciate understanding what your second question is in a nutshell.

Mr Conor Murphy: I shall repeat the question for your benefit, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for the benefit of those Members on the opposite Benches who are hard of hearing.
Does the Minister agree that it is ironic that, in the week during which the shipbuilding industry appears to be coming to an end, during which he has announced profound changes to the future of the education system, Unionists on the opposite Benches, who profess such a passionate interest in those subjects, are engaged in an unseemly scramble to see who can be first out of the very institution that will give —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The question is not related to the 11-plus.

Mr Conor Murphy: It is related to the future consultation on the 11-plus, but the people who profess such an interest in those matters will not be here for the future consultation.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: In answer to that question, it is important to say that almost all of the responses supported the abolition of the transfer tests, because the tests are unfair; they are inappropriate to the current and future educational needs of learners; they skew the primary school curriculum; and they have a detrimental and stressful impact on children.
Without dealing specifically with the controversy in regard to the Member’s last question, it is important to say that, throughout this process, I have articulated my deeply held belief that, as we move forward, the concern is to improve the educational opportunities of all our children — regardless of where they live, whether it be the Bogside, the Shankill Road, Portadown or Maghera.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The Alliance Party believes that this should be a milestone on the way to a better education for our children. I hope that we will have the opportunity to continue the consultation exercise and the debate in the Committee for Education and in the Assembly. It would be a dreadful indictment of all of us, and our children would suffer, if this exercise were to be suspended because of prevailing political circumstances. My party welcomes the Minister’s clear statement on transfer tests and the end of the 11-plus, and we will take part in the consultation to ensure that that is carried out as quickly as possible.
Because of the late receipt of the Minister’s statement, my three questions relate only to the statement. Academic selection has already been discussed, and I appreciate what the Minister said. However, how will those concerns be directly addressed in the consultation exercise? On a practical level, with regard to the timetable for the end of the transfer tests, how will parents of children in primary 5 and primary 6 be assured that future stress will not be placed on those children during the transition period?
In general, I welcome the comments at the end of the statement. However, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised at my next question. Whatever results from the consultation, will specific details on addressing the needs of children with special educational difficulties be included in this fairer education system that enables all young people to fulfil their potential, irrespective of background or circumstances?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank the Member for the constructive role that she and others have played throughout the course of this debate. With regard to the concerns identified by the Member, I have said time and time again that I want to build consensus on the new arrangements. Meetings with key education interests will be held in November to discuss their views on the responses to the consultation and how best to take forward the next stages of the review.
In developing the way forward, I shall consider carefully the comments and views expressed by our education partners at those meetings, together with the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education, and the responses to the consultation. I shall announce my proposals for the next stage of the review in December.
I am aware of the anxieties and concerns of parents and teachers regarding change. The Member was right to draw attention to that. I assure Members that the interests of children will continue to be my prime concern throughout the review. I said earlier — and I want it to be absolutely clear — that there will be no chaos in the education system. Neither will any children suffer as guinea pigs. Changes will be introduced in a planned and orderly manner to safeguard the education of children in school. My objective is to improve our children’s educational experiences and to improve standards for all. I shall work closely with our education partners to achieve that.
In respect of replacing the transfer tests with another test, the response to the consultation showed overwhelming support for the abolition of the tests.
As I have said time and time again in the House, revised tests will have the same weaknesses as the current arrangements. I have made clear my commitment to abolish the transfer test, and it is not my intention to replace it with another test that will effectively perpetuate the weaknesses in the current system.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which, because it concerns future of generations of working-class children, may address the most important decision to be made by the Assembly. Unfortunately, the media are likely to focus on the events of Friday 4 October rather than on this debate.
In line with targeting social need, how does the Minister propose to secure equality of access for all children who sit the transfer test next month? Will he consider a voluntary collaboration pilot scheme to include maintained, controlled, integrated and special schools? Is the Minister aware that such a voluntary collaboration network operates in north Belfast? Does he propose to review initial teacher-training programmes to facilitate the changes in the education system?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Although we cannot pre-empt the outcome of next month’s meetings with the education partners, a review of the initial teacher-training programmes must be given serious consideration. We know that there will be new arrangements of which initial teacher training must take account.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds constitute only 8% of pupils in grammar schools. The objective of the post-primary arrangements must be to ensure that all pupils, regardless of where their gifts lie, can progress and fulfil their full potential. I am seeking post-primary arrangements that provide flexible, diverse and high-quality choices to suit the varied needs, abilities and aptitudes of all our children. I passionately believe, as do most sensible people, that every child should be given the opportunity to succeed. My aim is to develop new arrangements that will address the weaknesses of the current system, be fair to all pupils and enable all pupils to fulfil their potential, irrespective of their background and circumstances.
The current academic selection system disadvantages low-income children in the following ways: pupils from the least disadvantaged schools are almost three times more likely to achieve a grade A than pupils from the most disadvantaged schools; the proportion of pupils in grammar schools entitled to free school meals is only 8% and has been declining in the past five years; disadvantaged pupils are only half as likely as other children to achieve five good GCSEs, grades A-C; and pupils from disadvantaged Protestant areas benefit least from the current system.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with Billy Hutchinson’s comments. His contribution to the debate, like the contributions of many other Members from all sides of the House, has been constructive and positive, which, as we continue the review, is the mood that we must capture. The positive mood exists in the education system. There is a good relationship between my Department and the education partners. There are difficult issues that must be faced up to, but we are well placed to do that. It is critical that we continue to work in a positive way. We must respect strongly held views from all sides. I have detected a strong mood of co-operation, which I have no doubt will carry over to the important deliberations that will take place in November before I bring my proposals to the Assembly in December.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Minister’s statement is important. It sends the message from the Assembly that there is an emerging consensus about the widespread consultation, for which I thank the Minister. It was good that a household survey was conducted. However, were its findings broken down by class? Often only those who have the capacity to respond to household surveys do so, and lower income families do not. Was that the case, because, if so, that may have had an impact on the findings?
Given the emerging consensus about the Burns Report, it seems that the issues we have to resolve are the common admissions criteria and the opposition to the collegiate system. Given that the issue of proximity to schools seems to have caused the greatest divergence of opinion, will the Minister tell us what he plans to do about that in the interim? What does he plan to do about the inequities of the school transport system and how will he address that issue in the long term?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I made it clear in a previous debate that my Department was working on a review of school transport. However, I am conscious of the points that Ms McWilliams made. There is no doubt that we shall have to consider the issues raised today as we move forward. That said, we must recognise that it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of our deliberations with our education partners next month. We shall have to see what transpires from them before we proceed.
As regards Ms McWilliams’s point about class, we could not put all of the information about breakdown by class in the booklet published this morning because, had we done so, Members would not have been able to carry it home. As I said during my speech, further information is available and can be found on the web site.
As regards the household response form, the response was much lower from people in socially disadvantaged areas than elsewhere. However, it is important to point out that we should not focus exclusively on any one strand of the consultation. The views of the socially disadvantaged are fully represented in the responses from community and voluntary groups as well as in those of the umbrella bodies, such as the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), schools in disadvantaged areas, the churches, political parties and human rights and equality groups.
Views on the proposals for the common admissions criterion were mixed. Many views were expressed on the individual criteria, and a lottery system was the most commonly suggested alternative tie-breaker. We must give considerable thought to the outcome of the consultation, and I have no doubt that, as we proceed through November, we shall face up to the challenges that the matter holds for us all.

Mr Ken Robinson: I shall reserve judgement on the report. I have had unfortunate experience of welcoming reports, only to find that the devil was in the detail. I am fascinated by the Minister’s crocodile tears for the people of the Shankill Road: I am sure they appreciate his tears given the previous occupations of some of his Colleagues and their nocturnal visits to the Shankill Road.
I am very concerned that the Minister has taken a selective approach to the statistics. It is unfortunate that Members received the booklet less than half an hour before arriving at the Chamber, and we got the Minister’s statement only on arrival at the Chamber Door — Members have not had an opportunity to dissect the documentation properly.
Would the Minister define the term "key stakeholder" and how that compares with "educational partners", a term he bandies across the Chamber a lot? Who are the educational partners and who are the key stakeholders?
Will the Minister assure the House and the concerned parents of Northern Ireland, who have made their feelings clear on some areas that the Minister has chosen almost to ignore this morning, that the consultation on the consultation will not constitute yet another attempt to skew our education system to suit his view of society? I heard one or two comments earlier in the debate that concerned me further —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Ken Robinson: Will the Minister also assure the House that the Committee for Education will be consulted and given adequate opportunity to make its views known and have them taken into account more meaningfully than heretofore? I notice that the Minister has all of his cheerleaders around him this morning, but perhaps that shows just how uncertain he is of this particular case —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. When the Deputy Speaker is standing, the Member will sit down.

Mr Ken Robinson: The matter is far too important —

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will sit when the Deputy Speaker is standing. Mr Robinson, order.

Mr Ken Robinson: This is far too important, Madam Deputy Speaker, to allow the Minister away —

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Robinson, are you challenging the ruling of the Deputy Speaker?

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to make an educational point.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have found that in previous important debates when a member of a Committee attempts to make an important point, he or she, unfortunately, never —

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker —

Ms Jane Morrice: I will not ask again, Mr Robinson.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I make my point?

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member resume his seat?

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I make my point?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will resume his seat while the Deputy Speaker is standing. Those are the Standing Orders that I assume the Member is acquainted with.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have waited patiently this morning. I am also required to attend another extremely important Committee in the House, and I would like to make my point to the Minister.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am warning the Member.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister has dilly-dallied this morning and time has gone by —

Ms Jane Morrice: I am warning the Member that I will name him and ask for him to be removed. I have given fair warning to you, Mr Robinson.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am making sure that I can make my point. I have given up my place on another Committee. The Minister has wasted time this morning.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr Ken Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is —

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to withdraw from the Chamber.
The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The description of key stakeholders can be found at appendix 7 of the document. I will not go through each one, as the list is very long.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for being late for this important debate. It must be realised that it is the same distance from Beragh to Stormont as it is from Stormont to Beragh.
I will ask serious questions of the Minister. Some parts of the Gallagher Report have been drawn to my attention and to the attention of other Committee members. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Parts of that report were the basis for the Burns Report. I have discovered that references in the ‘Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland’ are not found in the Gallagher Report. In a letter, the Vice Chancellor of Queen’s University described that as "unfortunate". It is alleged that those references were published, but that is incorrect. The Minister based much of his thinking on that first premise. If there is a suspicion of a flaw in the original Gallagher research, we should know whether that research was tested by his academic peers. Such a flaw would cast suspicion on the whole exercise. I want the Minister to treat that question seriously.
Last week, at the end of the Labour Party conference, the leader of the working-class population said —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Mr Gibson, I am sorry, but you will be aware that time is important.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be brief with my questions. The representative of the working-class population of the United Kingdom said that we are now in a post-comprehensive period.
Can the Minister ignore such a statement and continue to advocate comprehensive education? I ask the Minister to consider those serious questions. I am concerned about the original statement.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have a short answer. The Gallagher and Smith research has never been challenged seriously by anyone. In relation to the second point, there is no doubt whatsoever that during our discussions with the education partners we will have plenty of opportunities to deal with that. That is how I intend to deal with it.

Mr Alban Maginness: On a personal and lighter note, this morning over his boiled egg, my son Charlie, who is in P7, asked, "Daddy, could you ask that man in Stormont who is in charge of education to get rid of the 11-plus?" I can now go home armed with the knowledge that the Minister has at long last abolished the 11-plus. Many schoolchildren and parents throughout Northern Ireland will be delighted. Alas, it comes too late for my son, Charlie. Perhaps the Minister will make an exception for him this year. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Mr Gibson and Mr Paisley Jnr, resume your seats.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alban Maginness: No, not during questions. This is a very unruly crowd — it is a very unruly class.
There have been mixed responses to the Burns proposals by the public generally and by academics.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alban Maginness: However, there is a consensus against the 11-plus. That is beyond peradventure. The consultation has demonstrated consensus on the need for a common curriculum to the age of 14. Has the Minister proposals in the pipeline to create a common curriculum up to the age of 14 to meet that clear demand?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Strong views were expressed about the need for a common curriculum to the age of 14, and we will undoubtedly have many opportunities to deal with that. There was strong support for a common curriculum and for a broader range of curricular choices to be available to all pupils in Key Stage 4. Nobody should be under any illusions about that. We will deal with it, and we hope to outline to everyone how we intend to advance the issue in the proposals that we will submit in December.
I also want to tell the Member that I am going to write to Charlie to tell him that he has got his wish. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The behaviour of some members of the Education Committee on the opposite Benches has been completely disgraceful. It seems that they have not read Standing Orders and do not know to ask questions during statements instead of making long-winded statements.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Get to the question, Mr McHugh.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the abolition of the 11-plus, as do most people. Does the Minister not agree that even though the so-called grammar school lobby was effective in mobilising its supporters to complete the household survey, the people have spoken clearly about the 11-plus? That has implications for the future structures of post-primary education, its curriculum and assessment.

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is open to any group to make its views known on matters of major public interest. The grammar school campaign has a legitimate interest in this. The Governing Bodies Association conducted a public advertising campaign in the newspapers, and many grammar schools held meetings with parents to discuss the Burns proposals.
That was reflected in the responses to the household survey, which showed a higher response rate from parents with children attending, or who had attended, grammar schools than from other parents. However, that does not in any way invalidate the views expressed. It is clear that many of those parents have genuine concerns about the potential impact that change will have on education standards. I shall take those concerns into account when new arrangements are being developed. My objective is to raise standards for all pupils.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I remind the Minister of the inadequate answer that he gave to questions on academic selection. I point out to him, to the House and to the Public Gallery, which may not yet be aware of the report, that 579 responses — 510 from schools and 69 from further and higher education institutes, community groups and training organisations — expressed a wish to see an end to academic selection.
Opposed to that were the views that were sought from 200,551 households. Some 64% of respondents favoured retaining academic selection. The Omnibus Survey reflected that view. From a sample of 2,200 members of the public, 54% favoured retaining academic selection.
When we look at parents — [Interruption].

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: There is no giving way.

Mr Tom Hamilton: No, I shall not. Therefore, 64% of parents were in favour of retention. Interestingly, when one looks at the figure for schools that claimed to oppose academic selection, one sees that 62% of the teachers surveyed favoured retaining it. A figure that has not been quoted, and which is contained in the report’s summary, is that the opinion of primary and post-primary pupils was divided equally for and against academic selection. Therefore, even within — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member get to his question?

Mr Tom Hamilton: Yes. Some 50% of pupils were in favour of academic selection. In the light of those overwhelming figures in favour of academic selection, how can the Minister of Education stand before the House and say that the predominant view is that academic selection should be ended? Did the Minister of Education not go to the country to seek people’s views, thinking that he would hear what suited him, only to get a reaction that he did not expect? Instead of respecting the will of the people, he is trying to impose his will on the people.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I again remind Members that the household response form is only one strand of the consultation. Sixteen per cent of the adult population responded, from which just under two thirds were opposed to ending academic selection. Their views are important and will be taken into account. However, we must look at the wider picture and consider the greater number of people who did not respond, and also the responses to the other — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The majority — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The majority is based on the fact that there was support for ending academic selection from all five education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Transferor Representatives’ Council, institutes of further and higher education, the five main teachers’ unions, two thirds of schools, 30% of those who responded to the household response form — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: — a majority of the voluntary and community interests that responded, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women’s Coalition, the Workers’ Party, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Law Centre, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance and the Campaign Against Selection.
Conditional support also came from the northern Catholic bishops, the Confederation of British Industry, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment and the Catholic Heads Association. Opposition came from the Governing Bodies Association, the Secondary Heads Association, one third of schools, two thirds of those who responded to the household response forms, rural interest groups, the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP, the four district councils that responded, the Institute of Directors and a majority of the 16 training organisations that responded. That is clear. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Detention is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Expulsion would be better.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: There was a clearly expressed volume of support for pupil profiles. However, almost everyone seems to have his own ideas about what "pupil profile" means. How will the Minister be able to progress the development of pupil profiles to the satisfaction of all, being conscious of the administrative burden that might fall on teaching staff and of the interesting academic arguments about pupil profiles?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The concept of pupil profiles has been universally welcomed as a way of providing better information for parents and informing decisions about meeting the needs of learners. There are concerns about the use of pupil profiles in the transfer process, the need for consistency and fairness and the increased workload and pressure on teachers. However, I shall discuss that key issue in my meetings with the main education interests to consider how best to progress the next stages of the review.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Most right-thinking people would welcome the abolition of the injustice of the 11-plus. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Ms Mary Nelis: In the city where I live, that injustice resulted in the introduction of a busing system. That was not in Boston, where they bused in the failures and bused out the successes in the various estates. I welcome the Minister’s announcement. Does he agree that any future system must provide not only equality of opportunity, but also equality of access and provision, issues that emerged as a result of the consultation process?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am satisfied, given the constructive way in which the entire process has moved along over the past couple of years, that we can face up to the issues raised by Mrs Nelis. I have already addressed the central theme of her question. I shall not do the Assembly the disservice of giving another long answer.

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill (NIA 8/02) be agreed. — [The First Minister (Mr Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan).]
Motion not moved.

Energy Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Energy Bill (NIA 9/02) be agreed.
The energy scene in Northern Ireland has changed considerably in the last decade, and the pace of change shows no sign of slowing.
The next decade will bring a further raft of changes: EU Directives will require full market opening in electricity and gas; the gas networks will be substantially developed outside the Greater Belfast area; and the new North/South gas interconnection will be developed. There are associated developments in new, modern, efficient generation capacity and electricity interconnection, and there is interest in greatly increasing the proportion of Northern Ireland’s energy from renewable sources.
12.00
These exciting developments will bring enormous opportunities to Northern Ireland, but they will also bring challenges. It is crucial that Northern Ireland be positioned to meet those challenges and to use the changes to get the best results for its consumers. The Energy Bill will help us to achieve that. The items included in the Bill have been identified through consultation exercises as priorities requiring legislation. It is my intention that the Bill will enable Northern Ireland to meet the immediate energy challenges that it is likely to face.
There is more to be done, and I expect that further legislation will be necessary in due course. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is developing a new energy strategy for Northern Ireland for the next 10 years or so to fulfil a Programme for Government commitment, and I expect that more legislation will be necessary to give effect to that strategy. However, the issues that have been included in the Energy Bill will be important in setting the framework within which to develop any new strategy.
The issues included in the Bill result from several public consultation exercises to which there were almost 200 responses. In October 2001, the Department issued a consultation paper on renewable energy entitled ‘Realising the Potential’. Responses to the paper supported the introduction of an obligation on electricity suppliers to encourage further growth of renewable energy in Northern Ireland. I welcome the wholehearted endorsement of such a mechanism by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its comprehensive and valuable energy inquiry report.
In March 2002, the Department sought a wide range of views on the direction of a new energy market strategy through the publication of ‘Towards a New Energy Market Strategy for Northern Ireland’. That paper sought views on priority energy issues requiring legislation to be taken forward in a Bill in the lifetime of the Assembly. Among the priorities that the Department identified at the time were changes to consumer representation arrangements, changes to the regulatory framework, and postalisation of gas conveyance prices. The Department also sought consultees’ views on other issues.
Accordingly, the Department developed a draft Energy Bill that was issued for consultation in June of this year along with the draft equality and regulatory impact assessments. The Department outlined at that time its intention to add to the Bill, before its introduction in the Assembly, provisions enabling the restructuring of energy business activities to enable Northern Ireland to meet European obligations and to allow full market opening to proceed.
In setting a new regulatory framework and introducing changes to the consumer representation arrangements, the Energy Bill moves the consumer — particularly the vulnerable consumer — to the centre of the energy agenda.
Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule 1 create a new Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation. This will bring energy, electricity and gas regulation together in Northern Ireland for the first time, and it will allow the authority to take account of the interests of consumers of gas when considering electricity issues and vice versa. This important change removes the artificial distinction between the two industries, reflecting the closer relationship between the sectors.
The authority structure is modelled on the structures in Great Britain under the Utilities Act 2000, but it is my intention that the Northern Ireland authority should be tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland. It has been given a name that reflects its distinctiveness. The Northern Ireland authority should not require many members; rather, members should be required to bring to matters of regulation their experience and expertise in relevant energy areas.
I intend that the present regulator, Douglas McIldoon, will become chairman, and the Department will liaise with him before appointing other members. The Bill also enables the authority to co-operate with persons in other member states. This provision is aimed at increasing North/South co-operation on all-island issues but will also enable the authority to explore wider European issues.
Clauses 7 and 8 bring responsibility for energy consumer representation issues together under the remit of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I announced my intention to reform energy consumer representation matters in this way in August 2001, and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment supported that approach in its energy report. Like the Committee, I believe that consumers will be best served by having a single point of contact for advice and information.
In consequence of the new arrangements, the Bill abolishes the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity. I commend that committee for its sterling work on behalf of electricity consumers and for the dedication of its members and chairperson. The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland will continue to build on that work, and the enhanced powers under the Bill will enable the council to be a strong voice for energy consumers in Northern Ireland.
The authority and the council will have a close working relationship, and clause 9 reflects that by requiring information flows between both organisations and obliging them to draw up and publish a memorandum setting out the arrangements for securing co-operation between them. The authority and the Department are given new principal objectives and duties in relation to electricity and gas, and they are set out in full in clauses 10 and 12.
The principal objectives for electricity and gas are different. For electricity, the principal objective is to protect the interest of consumers, where appropriate, by promoting effective competition. For gas, the principal objective is to promote the development and maintenance of an efficient, economic and co-ordinated gas industry in Northern Ireland. That reflects the different stages of the electricity and gas markets in Northern Ireland and can be contrasted with the position in GB, where both markets are relatively mature.
In relation to electricity and gas, however, consumer issues have been moved much higher up the agenda. In particular, the Department and the authority, in exercising their duties under the Bill, are required to have regard to the interests of vulnerable consumers, defined as those who are disabled or chronically sick, of pensionable age, with low incomes, or, in the case of electricity, those who live in rural areas. Those vulnerable consumers may have particular issues with regard to energy, and this provision acknowledges that.
Part III of the Bill, which covers clauses 14 to 25, requires the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to establish a group in connection with its energy-related functions. It gives the council a wide range of functions in relation to electricity and gas. Those include keeping itself informed about consumer issues and views; providing and publishing advice and information; and dealing with complaints. The council is given strengthened powers in relation to electricity and gas matters. It can require information from the new regulatory authority and from licence holders, and it can conduct investigations.
Part IV of the Bill, which covers clauses 26 to 37, contains important new provisions creating new licences for electricity and gas. They position Northern Ireland to conform to the requirements of European Directives requiring the separation of energy company business activities to move to full market opening.
The effect of clauses 26 to 30 will be to enable more than one company to hold an electricity transmission or gas conveyance licence in a particular area. That will be done by allowing more than one company to carry out different functions in relation to the same transmission or conveyance assets. The different roles and functions will be specified in the licence conditions of the respective companies. The most immediate need for the provisions in the electricity sector relates to the desire to see the legal separation of the system operation activities in Northern Ireland Electricity from the company’s asset ownership function. Depending on the outcome of the present discussions on gas postalisation arrangements, there may be a similar need in the gas sector.
There are additional provisions in clauses 36 and 37, supplemented in schedule 2, to alter the scope of licensable activities either by making licensable activities that are not currently licensable, or by removing activities from regulatory control. The provisions give the Department additional flexibility to make further changes, if necessary, to comply with European Directives or otherwise to ensure the most appropriate energy market structure for Northern Ireland.
Any Orders made under those clauses would be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly. In addition, before an activity that is not currently licensable can be made to require a licence against the wishes of anyone carrying out that activity, the Competition Commission must indicate that it is against the public interest for the activity not to be regulated.
Clauses 31 and 32 of the Bill provide, among other things, that licence conditions may enable the application of a levy through an increase of the charges to a licence holder. I introduced those provisions primarily to ensure that certain costs associated with future development of the electricity market in Northern Ireland can be spread across all customers, thereby avoiding the problem of stranded costs.
Nevertheless, there have been various proposals for such a levy provision in order to reduce the cost of capital in the energy sector. The proposition is that banks would take greater comfort from such a provision, which could guarantee a revenue stream from consumers to lenders. The banks, therefore, would be likely to lend at lower rates of interest. Those more efficient financing arrangements, it is suggested, could then be substituted for existing arrangements, and consumers would be the beneficiaries of the consequent reduction in repayments.
I invite the proponents of such a proposal to consider how the provision that is included in the Bill might be used in developing their ideas into specific proposals, which must address potential state-aid issues and tax implications before any consumer benefit can be fully assessed.
Clauses 34 and 35 alter the current position with regard to changes to electricity and gas licences following a reference to the Competition Commission. The changes introduced by those clauses give the Competition Commission the final say in determining the licence modifications which should be made to remedy matters that the Commission has identified as operating against the public interest following a reference from the authority, thereby securing greater certainty of outcome in such matters.
The authority will still put forward its proposals about the appropriate modifications, but the Competition Commission can substitute its own, if it feels that they are more appropriate.
In Part V of the Bill, clauses 42 to 47 strengthen the existing enforcement powers of the authority and give it new powers to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. The provisions enable the authority to impose fines on licensees of up to 10% of the turnover of that licensee for breach of licence conditions, certain statutory obligations or, in relation to electricity, standards of performance.
There has been keen interest in the issue of renewable energy. Clauses 49 to 55 of the Bill, which constitute Part VI, provide the legislative basis for establishing a renewables obligation in Northern Ireland to stimulate the generation and consumption of electricity from renewable sources. The renewables obligation will require electricity suppliers to provide evidence in the form of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) that they have supplied a specified proportion of renewable electricity to consumers.
Renewables obligations exist already in Scotland, England and Wales. The ultimate intention is that ROCs should be tradable throughout the UK. That will require amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 in Great Britain and the Renewable Obligation Orders that were made under that legislation in Scotland, England and Wales. Contacts with Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive are continuing with a view to establishing a UK-wide trading arrangement and agreeing the necessary legislative changes.
I have always been careful to point out the need to maintain a balance between the strong interest in renewables and the additional costs associated with ambitious targets for their development. The target for the proportion of electricity from renewable sources will be set in the context of the energy strategy that is being developed, and I will continue to work closely with the Committee, the new authority and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland on that matter.
Part VII of the Bill contains several miscellaneous matters that I do not intend to describe in detail. However, clauses 56 and 57, which enable postalisation of gas conveyance charges, are vital elements of the Bill, because postalisation is absolutely necessary to enable the north-west, South/North gas project to go ahead. Postalisation will mean that the charges for conveying a therm of gas through designated pipelines will be the same regardless of the distance that it is conveyed or the number of pipelines through which it is conveyed.
The Executive have endorsed postalisation, and introducing legislative provision in the area fulfils a commitment that I made to the Executive in September 2001 when they approved grant aid for the project. The provisions enable the Department to designate pipelines that are to be subject to the postalised charge, and allow the Department or the authority to modify gas licences where necessary or expedient for the purposes of implementing the postalisation arrangements or to facilitate their efficient operation.
Some of the gas companies have expressed concern at the postalisation provisions, which are modelled on provisions in the Utilities Act 2000 for bringing the new electricity trading arrangements into operation. I am due to hear those concerns first-hand later this month, and in the light of those discussions I shall decide if adjustments which do not constrain our ability to effect postalisation are required.
Clause 58 of the Bill will replace the current temporary savings provisions in section 6 of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. It enables the Department to make energy-related payments for certain purposes.
The Bill’s provisions will be brought into operation by a commencement Order, as provided for in clause 62. The postalisation provisions will be the exception, coming into operation immediately on the Bill’s enactment. Subject to satisfactory progress on the Bill’s Assembly stages, I would like the changes to the regulatory and consumer-representation arrangements to take effect from 1 April 2003.
The provisions in this Bill will be very important in enabling Northern Ireland to move forward with the ongoing changes to its gas and electricity sectors. I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the Bill. As the Assembly is well aware, the Committee has demonstrated a great deal of interest in energy policy. Indeed, the Committee’s second very detailed inquiry was into energy, and we welcome the many provisions in the legislation that reflect the Committee’s deliberations and recommendations.
I do not intend to go over old ground and rehearse earlier debates. Suffice it to say that the Committee’s recommendations covered five broad areas: the cost of electricity; improving energy efficiency; renewable energy; the extension of the gas network; and the development of the all-island energy market. Most of those areas are covered to a greater or lesser extent in the detail of this very complex piece of legislation. Of course, the Bill also deals with other issues that were not in the Committee’s report, and the Department has agreed to consider certain matters that were in that report for future legislation.
In the few minutes for which I am allowed to speak, I hope to concentrate on the areas of concern that we have identified in the Bill as it stands and give a commitment to the Assembly that those and all areas within the Bill’s scope will be scrutinised in the detail that one would expect from a responsible Assembly Committee.
The most fundamental concern of the Committee is that electricity prices in Northern Ireland are still too high. Not only that, but a disproportionately high number of people experience fuel poverty. Although the question of fuel poverty is primarily the responsibility of the Department for Social Development, and tackling fuel poverty requires a fundamental belt-and-braces approach from across the Government, the Committee will scrutinise the Bill in fine detail and explore whether it can be amended in any way with the result of reducing prices for the consumer. There are ongoing deliberations between members of our own Committee and members of the Committee for Social Development to see whether a joint approach might be made on the issue.
That will include giving consideration to whether the Department should be instructed to make provision for the issue of consumer bonds. The Committee believes that the option for such a provision should be in the Bill, and we may well introduce an amendment on the issue. Regardless of whether the Department takes such a course, we believe that the opportunity should be provided in the legislation. As the Minister said, certain organisations will meet him, and they will meet me soon to discuss those issues.
The Committee has given its full support to extending the gas network in Northern Ireland, which means, in the first instance, that the gas pipeline will be extended to the north-west. The Committee will closely scrutinise the Bill’s provisions that legislate for the postalisation of gas supplies. The Committee intends to confirm that proposals that are designed to ensure that gas costs are the same for all consumers mean exactly that — that those who live and work in outlying and disadvantaged areas pay no extra charges. That is why I welcome the Minister’s commitment. I am aware that he has come under pressure from various quarters on that, but it is an issue that the Committee feels very strongly about.
The Committee’s advocacy of the greater use of renewable energy is on record; in practice, that means the extensive development of wind farms. The Committee feels that the Department is not being ambitious enough in its attempts to meet the targets that were set by the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee will consider whether to propose amendments to the Bill that will enable Northern Ireland to take its rightful role as the pacesetter in generating renewable energy throughout these islands. That was reflected in the Committee’s report on energy.
The Committee will also examine whether the Department has followed the provisions of Great Britain’s Utilities Act 2000 too closely. There are arguments for and against following "parity legislation" word for word in Northern Ireland after laws have been passed at Westminster. However, there can be no dispute that the energy market in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain. We have higher electricity prices, a greater reliance on oil, and a rudimentary lasting gas infrastructure. Despite the interconnectors, Northern Ireland’s electricity industry has what amounts to a monopoly on electricity supply. Is slavishly following Westminster legislation appropriate in those circumstances?
There is, of course, much to be applauded in the Bill. Without wishing to prejudice further deliberations by the Committee, I can give a guarded welcome to the new Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation and to transferring certain responsibilities in that field to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. The Committee recommended that in its report. Although welcoming that, I can give the Assembly a commitment that those parts of the Bill will undergo the same detailed scrutiny as the more controversial areas.
Finally, facilitating the establishment of an independent transmission system operator should be welcomed. It will mean that in future responsibility for the transmission of electricity will be divorced from responsibility for the generation of electricity. That removes a potential conflict of interests, which should benefit the consumer. The legislation does not detail how the transmission system operator should operate. The Committee will probe departmental intentions on that matter.
The Bill is laudable legislation, which, I suspect, the Committee will generally support. In many ways, it reflects the changing nature of the energy market in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, in the British Isles and in Europe. However, the Committee intends to scrutinise the legislation thoroughly. It has already publicly advertised for submissions from all interested bodies.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Like the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I do not intend to say much other than to welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. During its inquiry, the Committee received many written and oral submissions. It made many constructive visits to places that have renewable energy policies, such as Denmark and Brussels.
The Committee visited those places to see renewable energy facilities, particularly in Denmark, which has one of the most energy-efficient heating supply systems in the world due to the implementation of combined heat and power (CHP) technology. That was also evident during one of the Committee’s case study visits to Brook Hall estate at Culmore in Derry.
The Committee’s main objectives in visiting Denmark were to see how for example diversification, creating energy from waste, could be achieved; to consider a strategic challenge to the inequitable generation contracts, which had been negotiated at the time of privatisation; and to see at first hand the renewable energy market and its potential in the global market, which could make up to £1 billion a year by 2010.
In Denmark, the Committee also saw the operation of an offshore wind farm — a project currently under discussion here. The Danish wind farm was built in November 2000 and consists of 20 2-megawatt wind turbines. It is situated just three kilometres outside the port of Copenhagen. The expected annual electricity production is 90,000 megawatt hours, which equals the electricity consumption of 20,000 Danish households and represents approximately 3% of Copenhagen’s power consumption. The visit illustrated to the Committee the advantages and disadvantages of wind energy. It will certainly inform part of the debate about the proposed wind farm off the north-west coast.
The visit to Brussels provided the Committee with an opportunity to become more familiar with European energy policy within the Commission. Now that all EU Directives are being scrutinised much more closely, we must make ourselves aware of the energy policy. There have been discussions about burning Orimulsion at Kilroot. Seeing Orimulsion plants at first hand informed the Committee about what it was considering and whether it could recommend Orimulsion to the Minister.
The Committee made 45 recommendations, which have mainly been supported by the Minister. However, he did not support the first recommendation on nuclear energy. The Committee wants the nuclear power reprocessing plants on the western seaboard of Great Britain to be eventually replaced with sustainable energy facilities.
The Committee was quite troubled by electricity costs and was awaiting the outcome of the Department’s consultation on its paper entitled ‘Towards a New Energy Market Strategy’. We welcome the Minister’s decision on licensing and the extended powers being given to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.
The Committee felt that the energy efficiency levy should be increased to £5 per household per annum. As the Deputy Chairperson said, it would be used to help eradicate fuel poverty. There have already been discussions on that with the Department for Social Development.
The combined cycle gas turbine electricity project at Coolkeeragh is now going ahead. I am glad that the Minister said that the postalisation of gas and electricity costs must be borne equally and equitably by all domestic and commercial consumers. Support should also be sought from the EU and other sources to meet the cost of current and future gas pipeline extensions.
The Committee wants to ensure the future of the all-island energy market. Of course, that requires adequate electricity and gas interconnector capacity, strong charging policies with effective regulation, and strong consumer protection. The Executive should investigate the possibility of abolishing the Government royalty tax, thus reducing the differential in corporation tax between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to enable companies to trade in a more equitable all-island energy market.
As the Deputy Chairperson said, targets for renewables are probably set too low. The Committee is aware of the considerable cost to the consumer. Having seen such measures in operation in Denmark, they are probably a more expensive part of electricity charges. However, because of the climate change levy, the difference in pricing between here and Great Britain, and the length of time it took for gas to be introduced here, the Committee feels that derogation should be extended. The Minister has given us an assurance that derogation will be sought for 10 years rather than the current five years, and the Committee welcomes that.
As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment said, the Committee spent much time and energy on clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill to ensure that it will benefit all consumers in Northern Ireland. I welcome its introduction by the Minister and can assure him that we will give it an advantageous reading.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too will be brief. I thank the Minister and am sure that he would agree that, although the Committee retains its right to challenge and be critical of the Department and the Minister, our relationship with both provides a good example of how well partnership arrangements can work. I enjoyed working on this — I found it interesting. It is a shame that much of the valuable work done to date will now be brought down by the political crisis.
Mr Neeson, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment adequately represented many of the Committee’s views, particularly those on the emissions target. The Committee is broadly agreed on that. I will not rehash all those issues, but I want to make several points about the Bill.
First, I would like the new arrangements for regulation and consumer representation to include all perspectives on energy and to pay particular attention to domestic consumer representation, especially for those on low income and other vulnerable consumers. That may require changes to the process of application to the General Consumer Council or a change in criteria for potential members — such changes would not be beyond the council’s capability. I expect that any appointments to the General Consumer Council will adhere to equality principles. I would also be interested to hear a detailed response from the council about how it intends to fulfil the duties proposed in the legislation, so that we can assess the impact of those changes.
The issue of the fuel poor has much exercised the Committee and, I am sure, the Minister and the Department. The Minister may find it worthwhile to recognise the fuel poor as a distinct vulnerable group in the legislation and to make the necessary provision for that. The extension of the natural gas infrastructure should be wholeheartedly supported; so too the principle of a common tariff. Pricing according to location is an exclusive measure that will contribute to further uneven economic development and may contribute to the exclusion of those customers who could gain most from a natural gas supply — people on lower incomes and the fuel poor. I broadly welcome the Bill. At this stage, we do not know when the Committee will be able to scrutinise it in more detail, but I look forward to having the opportunity to do so. Go raibh maith agat.

Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate. I will try to deal with the points as they arose. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise Trade and Investment, MrNeeson, expressed his concern at the high electricity costs. He is preaching to the converted. However, many of the energy measures that we have been dealing with over the past few years have begun to lay foundations for change.
There will be additional competition. There are now North/South and east-west interconnectors for gas and electricity. The nature of the contracts and our high dependency on fuel costs, which are passed on directly to the customer, have been long-term problems for us. Nevertheless, after the regulator’s transmission and distribution review, and the likely substantial rise in electricity costs in the Republic, the differential is beginning to narrow, or at least it has been prevented from becoming any worse. Electricity prices in Great Britain are artificially low, and it will not be possible to sustain those prices in the distant future. The basic foundations for substantial change are being put in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McClelland) in the Chair.
Mrs Courtney referred to the fact that the North/South interconnector is in place. However, we cannot trade fully on that interconnector. Although it has a substantial capacity, the Republic’s distribution network cannot yet handle it. Substantial investment is necessary, and we have pressed the authorities to examine the issue closely. The investment will come, but much work must be done on the distribution network’s infrastructure before the full benefit of that trade can be achieved.
Mr Neeson referred to renewables, and he is correct to say that it is the responsibility of the Department for Social Development to introduce legislation to address fuel poverty issues. I support his view that there must be co-operation at a high level, and we must have regard to the definition of "vulnerable consumers". Dr O’Hagan made that point in her contribution. "Vulnerable consumers" should cover the majority of those who are in, or are at risk of being in, a fuel poverty situation. Approximately 170,000 households in Northern Ireland come into that category. There is work to be done in that area.
Mr Neeson also mentioned parity legislation, which is not simply carbon-copy legislation. Our consumer arrangements are totally different from those in Great Britain. He also referred to the issue of capital, as other Members have done in previous debates. I refer Mr Neeson and others to the press release I issued when I introduced the Bill. I invited proponents of such a proposal to consider how the provision, now included in the Bill, might be used to develop ideas into specific proposals, which would have to address potential state aid issues and tax implications before any consumer benefit could be assessed fully. I am prepared to examine that issue, as is the Committee. However, if we go down that road, we must ensure that we can identify genuine and real benefits and that it is not done simply because somebody thought it was a good idea at the time. It must benefit the consumer.
Several Members, including Dr O’Hagan, mentioned consumer representation arrangements. The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland already represents consumers, and clause 14 of the Bill requires the council to consider the interests of consumers on low incomes. The Bill also obliges the council to prepare and publish a forward work programme.
Dr O’Hagan’s point goes to the core of public appointments. We know that the rules are strict, including the guidelines issued by Sir Leonard Peach, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Although one must be as fair as possible at all times, there is a valid point about the number of people who feel able to apply for jobs. The application process is tiresome and, for many, a daunting task. There is a question over whether someone from such a vulnerable background would get over the different hurdles, including meeting the criteria and passing the interviews. Such things could militate against someone from a vulnerable group. Undoubtedly, there is a problem. It is not, however, confined to the General Consumer Council; it applies to the whole public appointments sector.
In an effort to be fair to people, in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far. The process is much too elaborate. Members debated the 11-plus earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker, although, given your background, you might be good at the 11-plus, if the rest of us were to sit the test, how many would pass? The hurdles that ordinary people must overcome to be employed in public bodies are too high and too complicated. That is something for all of us to consider; it is not specific to this case.
I am conscious that, in making the changes to representation work, we must demonstrate that those who are directly affected have a voice. The question is whether that can be achieved within the strictures of the public appointments process if we do not have much discretion in such matters. I am not sure of the answer to that question; perhaps it should be discussed during the Committee Stage.
Members expressed support for the postalisation of the gas network, which is a critical element of the Bill. Without postalisation, it will not be possible to get the gas pipelines approved and built.
Postalisation sounds very complicated, but it is relatively simple. We already have postalisation for electricity: a unit of electricity in Belleek is the same price as a unit in Larne, and rightly so. If people were charged the true cost of conducting a unit of electricity to Belleek, it would be prohibitive. Similarly, postalisation of gas would spread potential access to such a natural resource as widely across the population as possible. This is the only way in which that can happen.
Of course, the term "postalisation" is derived from the postal system. It costs the same to send a first-class letter from Belfast to Lisburn as it does to send a letter from Belfast to Plymouth or to the highlands and islands. The principle is that a single price transports a unit around. If we stray from that principle, we will encounter serious difficulties. We must ensure that postalisation occurs. There are details to be discussed on how best to introduce it, and I will hold discussions with interested parties in the coming weeks. However, I am convinced that the principle of postalisation is sound and that we can finalise the details as we progress the Bill.
While we proceed with the legislation, we must remember our end target. Because of the structures that we inherited, systems operation is done in-house by Northern Ireland Electricity. We want to separate that out.
Any authority that may be created will not be huge; it will be very small, run by a handful of people. The existing regulator, Mr Douglas McIldoon, will chair it, and one or two others with particular skills and expertise may help him. We do not intend to create an elaborate structure.
As with the General Consumer Council, we are removing one body and amalgamating it with others to form one because we want to create a one-stop shop that is a centre of excellence. That is no reflection of the work that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has done on electricity, but Northern Ireland is a small place, and it makes sense to have all the consumer representatives and experts working under one body. It is not a complicated concept, but it will help.
As we proceed to the next legislative stage, I will appreciate the support of the Committee. Renewables are high on its agenda. We must set a target — people think that we have done so already, but we have not. We are discussing targets through the energy strategy, and we will reach a conclusion. People must remember that if you set a target for renewables, however desirable, there is a cost. Mr Neeson began the debate by saying that we have high electricity costs. I want to see as much renewable energy as possible, but we must remember that there is a price to be paid.
People think that the windmills can be erected here, there and everywhere, that biomass can be used and that the more of those we have, the more renewable energy we have. It is not as simple as that. Wind will realistically be the source of over 90% of our renewable energy, but people are not picking up on the fact that it tends to be in remote areas — on mountains, at the coast and so forth. By definition, the distribution network in those areas is fragile because of their remoteness. The intermittent nature of wind energy means that the system cannot technically absorb large bursts of electricity that are followed by none. The consumer must be constantly supplied with electricity. If a system receives huge surges followed by a withdrawal of those surges, it must be replaced. The distribution network must be technically strengthened in many of those places, which will be a major cost. People must understand that, and that point is not coming across in the debate.
Offshore wind was mentioned, and we know that there is local concern about it. That is going through a year-long process, and we will see what is proposed at the end of that. Ultimately, windmills will be placed in prominent places, either offshore or on top of mountains. People will be able to see them, because that is where the wind is. Therefore, if we want renewable energies, and as most of it in Northern Ireland will come from wind, we must either decide to tolerate their visual impact environmentally or accept the surreptitious gradual erosion of our environment through the emission of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere. All developed countries must make that choice, and, in common with those countries, we must debate that.
A difficult choice must be made, and we know locally that that is the sort of thing that we want in somebody else’s backyard but not in our own. Biomass has the advantage of being able to supply a constant flow of electricity; the supply from wind, on the other hand, is more intermittent. However, realistically, the potential for biomass is limited because of the amount of material that is available to keep the machines going and the likely cost. Willow and other materials are usable and good. The technology will improve, as will our performance, in time. However, that will not be done for nothing, and it is fine as long as everybody understands that.
In conclusion, I thank the Committee for how it conducted its report into energy and for its handling of these matters. I look forward to working with it as it considers the Second Stage of the Bill. If amendments are suggested to the Bill, the Department and the Committee will co-operate in the spirit of partnership that has marked our work. We are endeavouring to get the best deal for the consumer and to ensure that our economy is as competitive as it can possibly be in relation to our neighbours who hitherto have had significant energy advantages over us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Energy Bill (NIA 9/02) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: Final Stage

Resolved:
That the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill (NIA 9/01) do now pass. — [The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey)]

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: Final Stage

Resolved:
That the Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill (NIA 10/01) do now pass. — [The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey)]

Fair Price Commission

Mr George Savage: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the disastrous situation of agriculture in Northern Ireland and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish a Fair Price Commission with one of its principal functions being to investigate the distribution of profits within the Agri-Food sector.
When I first mooted the idea of a fair price commission, those who prefer inaction to action — among whom I am sorry to say is our own Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — deliberately misunderstood me. They tried to accuse me of price fixing. They said that "That cannot be done in a free market."; "It is a reserved matter."; and "It is not within my competence.". These are smokescreens for inaction and are without substance.
My intention was to redress the unfairness of the distribution of profits in the end price of agricultural goods. Recently, Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers’ Union told the ‘Daily Telegraph’ that of an average basket of farm produce, containing eggs, beef, milk, bread, tomatoes and apples, which typically cost £37 in the shops, the farmer received only £11, a figure significantly less than one third of the end price.
Clearly, that is an appalling and unsupportable situation. What additional value do food processors and the food retailers add to the goods produced by farmers? Fair-minded people would say that it certainly is not two thirds of the end price. Mr Gill eloquently highlighted the central problem, which I want a fair price commission to tackle.
The first task of that commission would be to establish the facts of the case and to weed out the apocryphal and completely unacceptable. Just how much goes to the end retailer, which, as often as not, is a supermarket chain?
Once again, the president of the Farmers’ Union, Ben Gill, put it well. He gave a simple illustration. Pig farmers receive 96p a kilo for their animals, yet pork retails at £6·97 a kilo. Somewhere between the farm and the retail outlet, someone makes £6·01 more than the farmer is paid for every kilo of pig meat. The farmer gets less than 14%; the processor and retailer, between them, receive some 86%.
In anybody’s language, that is unfair. From farm to fork, it is plain that something is wrong. For years, the farmers’ unions have talked to supermarkets, but, as one would suspect, no progress has been made, for sentiment and money are bad companions.
Where the fault lies — whether the processor takes too much by manipulating the number of cuts that he pays for, or whether the supermarket chains take too much by using their overwhelming buying power — is not really the point. Wherever there is unfair practice, the facts of the case must be established. The only way to do that is by investigating the matter, using the medium of a specially established fair price commission. That investigation would be the primary task of such a commission. All we ask for is fair play — a level playing field. Farmers in Northern Ireland are efficient and have proven over the years that they are at the forefront of modern expertise in all sectors of farming.
The commission’s second task would be to establish what was broadly accepted as a fair distribution of profits between the different sectors: the farmers, or producers; the processors; and the retailers.
One thing must be established. As things stand, processors and the distributors take their profit first. Everybody takes their whack out of the profit. When it reaches the bottom of the chain, there is nothing left for the farmers. The whole process needs to be reversed. The farmers must get a fair price for what they produce, and others can follow. There must be an about-turn. We cannot go on in this way. This must be based on the real value added to the produce. This must be done using pre-established yardsticks. Only then will myth be separated from reality. We need a third-party assessment of the true extent of the problem, and the figures will cause public shock.
The third part of the remit of a fair price commission would be to award certificates. These would appear in the form of labels on products in shops stating that those items of food were produced under circumstances in which farmers received a fair price. Because of price controls, the scheme would have to be voluntary. It would operate in the same way as the PONI (produce of Northern Ireland) labels. The labels would be similar to the labels on organic food now appearing in supermarkets.
Consumers are the next part of the equation. Consumer education is required. They would have to be aware that the fair price labels on goods meant that they were buying produce for which the farmers had received a fair price. Consumers drive supermarkets, and supermarkets will only change their practices if customers dictate it. Consider the example of organic produce. It is only by establishing such a structure that we will create change.
Ben Gill also said that talks with the supermarkets have dragged on for years but that they never get anywhere, which is true. What I propose would break the impasse. It is market-orientated and market-driven. The Government should enable the introduction of fair practice by producing a structure or mechanism for it.
That is the Government’s duty. Hiding behind excuses is disreputable, and it leaves a bad taste, especially for the Department. I have every sympathy for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; it has many problems. It now has an opportunity to give a lead rather than resist it, and to earn the reputation of being an aid worker rather than being the policeman. Let it do so with good grace for once, instead of trying to put obstacles in the way of the farmers, who ultimately keep in place that enormous, £200 million-a-year, edifice that is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and its employees.
I read about one of the issues that currently concern us in the paper this past week. Italy’s Government are introducing a quality-control system to guarantee standards. They are fed up with impostors. Checks have been carried out in all sectors of the Department there. One of the most important points is that meetings continue to take place across the country. People are voicing their concerns at the bad prices being paid. Meetings are actually taking place today.
All this could be avoided if the primary producer got a fair price for his produce. Greed is a powerful weapon. Will it last? There are currently 80,000 jobs directly or indirectly involved in the agriculture industry here. Those jobs must be protected and not left to the wills of unscrupulous people. Look what has happened to our shipbuilding industry this past week. Do we want that to happen to the agriculture industry? Not only would we like to see the shipyard back, but we would like to get our agriculture industry back onto a level footing.
A farmer told me last week that working on his farm was like working in a concentration camp, as all he did was work and sleep. Things cannot continue as they are. As the Committee of the Regions noted:
"Since the European Union is a world power, it must yield its influence to ensure that the rules governing international trade and farm produce match its interests and values in keeping with this new common agricultural policy and must take realistic account of the international context arising from American unilateralism and seek to set up a balanced, fair system of trade with the developing nations."
Our problems are the same as those of many other countries. If our farming industry is not protected, in a few years’ time we will have no industry. We do not want to finish up like the shipyard in Belfast, which used to be the backbone of Northern Ireland. Agriculture is currently the backbone of our country, and we must protect it. I tell our Government that we can work together to solve the problem. There is no point in pussyfooting about because we have major problems. That ties in with the weakness of the territorial impact analysis for the proposed measures. It is stated:
"As parallel debates are conducted on the two costliest community policies, this is the moment for tacking them together so that neither is seen as the balancing variable of the other."

Ms Jane Morrice: I call the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Bríd Rodgers, to respond. My apologies, Minister, I see Gerry McHugh’s name on the list.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have no difficulty understanding that anyone can mix things up today. The focus is on everything except the Order Paper.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is not in the Chamber yet. He purports to be very supportive of the farming community and its needs, but it is clear that he, and his party, are off fighting for their real interest, which is the demolition of anything that might be positive for farming here.
The motion is difficult inasmuch as one might ask what a fair price commission could achieve. However, I support the motion because anything that might help the primary producer or the whole industry must be supported. People might say that a fair price commission would support farmers. The debate could be widened to the point where people would have to realise that it involves the whole industry; not just one part of it. If we do not have a fair price at the producers’ end, as the last Member said, then we will not have an industry. It is as simple as that.
My biggest worry is that there could be a situation here in the not-so-distant future in which we would have to import all of our raw agricultural material for processing and everything that consumers need. Such imports would raise issues about quality.
Mr Savage said that farmers are now in slavery and that the next generation will not take part in an industry that will not be giving them any return. There are precious few farmers now who can say that they are getting any return for their effort. No one in any other walk of life would put in the same effort for such a small return. The result will be the total meltdown of the industry. Any vision statement or document with a 10-year delivery span will not have a hope of delivering improvements. Those are the difficulties.
I have a few questions concerning a fair price commission. Would it embarrass only the processing industry? Would it put enough pressure on supermarkets to increase prices to the farmers and not just the processors? How would it stop the importation of inferior food from all corners of the world? There would be a demand for quality produce from imports. For example, there is the poor quality of grain coming through Warrenpoint. Ten per cent of that grain can contain anything, and it would certainly not be good enough to go into animal feed. We should be able to stand over the production of the end product.
Given the forecast that 50% of dairy farmers may go out of the business following Agenda 2000 proposals, and given the 15% cut in intervention prices for butter and 5% for milk powder, would a fair price commission have any effect on staving off those cuts? What effect would it have in keeping prices up when we are heading towards world market prices?
The World Trade Organisation and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, want to increase the cuts. They also want to speed up the common agricultural policy reform. They want the opposite to what would support the industry and its mainstay here.
In the light of those questions, where will we end up? Moving to world prices would mean high costs for the farmer, high wages, high inputs and low end prices. Could farmers survive? We do not have an option because of the scale of countries such as Brazil and New Zealand that are in straight competition with us. The UK policy for more drastic cuts and reforms works against us.
We had a long debate at Loughry College last week about the common agricultural policy reform. That puts the industry’s future into perspective. The principal components have been addressed. The Committee’s report dealt with the business of fair prices for farmers. I am sure that most of the recommendations contained in that report have yet to be implemented.
The consumer and the primary producer are closely linked. What does society want? That question was asked during a speech last week. However, what question was society asked? Was it asked whether it wanted food from outside Europe? Does society want low-quality food that has no traceability? Does society want food from producers who are not required to adhere to the same regulations that we must follow? Is that what the consumer wants? Will the consumer even be able to choose local produce in the future?
Perhaps we should move towards localised markets that are free of food that has been transported many miles. Localised marketing offers the farmers more control. There is also the issue of global sustainability. Do we want large areas of rainforest to be wiped out in order to create grass that is eroded after three years? The rainforest countries may be poor, but they have been exploited and destroyed by multinationals. That is why they must do what they do. However, as a result, we are importing food from countries that are unable to produce it in the long term. We can produce food, but we are not allowed to produce it, and it seems that it will not be economically feasible to continue to do so in the near future. Those are the questions that we must ask.
Just as the Assembly seems to be almost in meltdown, so is the agriculture industry. I am sure that it can only look on at the disgraceful attempts to bring down the only institutions that might have a hope of making a future for local farmers. British Ministers and British Government policies will not do that. I support the idea of a fair price commission that can do something to stem the low prices that primary producers endure. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr John Dallat: George Savage put his finger on it when he said that something is wrong somewhere. Of course there is something wrong somewhere. Therein lies the question. Where is the problem that causes such a variation between the farmgate price and the price that is charged in the supermarkets? I am sure that Mr Savage would agree that to establish a fair price commission would not guarantee that all would be put right and that the beleaguered farming community would obtain a fair price for its produce. Indeed, there is concern that it could turn into another layer of bureaucracy. At a time when the Ulster Farmers’ Union, through its care campaign, has been highly critical of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for being over-bureaucratic, it might well add to concern that we plan to create another layer of bureaucracy.
Do we have the power to set up a fair price commission? We shall have to wait for the Minister’s response for the answer. It would be unfair to mislead the farming community that such a measure could be implemented if we have no power to do so. The issues are more complex and much more difficult to confront than simply setting up a fair price commission.
That is not to say that we should do nothing. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development addressed the issue on at least two occasions but failed to produce concrete evidence that price-fixing exists. That is not to say that price-fixing does not exist. Indeed, most farmers believe that it does. It would be wrong to believe or claim that the setting up of a fair price commission would provide a solution to what is a serious issue. I commend Mr Savage for tabling the motion and enabling the debate, but I do not believe that it is achievable or that it would be successful. However, I do not mean to question Mr Savage’s sincerity; he is an influential and important member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.
There is no denying that the farming industry is in crisis, but tinkering with the problem will not bring about the fundamental changes that the farming industry needs. Today is an opportunity to reflect on the work that has been done — for example, by the vision group and as a result of the encouragement given by the Minister to farmers to establish co-ops to improve their marketing methods and skills, to add value to their products and, in a range of other ways, to try to achieve better prices for their produce. However, that is not to say we should not focus on the supermarkets, which have a major role to play in ensuring that their source of supply is protected. While I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Savage, I believe that his proposal is fraught with difficulties.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I support the motion and add my voice to my Colleague’s calls for a fair price commission, which will have the ultimate aim of securing a fair price for farmers’ produce. The situation in the agriculture sector is desperate. Two years ago there was a mass demonstration by farmers to Parliament Buildings to protest at the low prices in farming. Today the prices are still unsustainable — and that is five years after the real crisis began.
Why is the farming industry still on its knees? Farmers know why. Fat-cat processors and supermarkets are the culprits. They take more than their fair share of the profits. The need for a fair price commission is clear, and it was particularly highlighted in recent weeks by the Ulster Farmers’ Union’s campaign against rural exodus (CARE).
On 26 September the Ulster Farmers’ Union put fresh food on sale at the farmgate price that the farmer receives, rather than at the supermarket retail price. One litre of milk cost 15p and 2·5kg of potatoes cost 22p — a 900% drop from the average supermarket value. That is a disgrace.
Farmers have to bear the high costs of feeding and housing livestock. This year’s wet weather will add to those costs. However, farmers receive only a small return on their produce. Large supermarket chains have massive bargaining power. When a bargain is to be given to the consumer the farmer receives less for his product, yet the supermarkets’ profit remains the same. Supermarkets are able to dictate the prices they pay to farmers for produce, and that undermines the notion of a fair market system.
In recent years large processing companies have gained what amounts to almost a monopoly situation by buying over small abattoirs. Once again, this results in low and unfair prices for farmers. Farmers are working an average of 70 hours a week, and some work over 110 hours a week. Farm incomes are unsustainable, while supermarkets and other parties in the food chain continue to announce massive yearly profits. Where is the level playing field?
The system is not working. I support the call to urgently establish a fair price commission to expose how profits are being unfairly distributed on a massive scale. I also call for that commission to scrutinise profits and to ensure that they are shared equally.

Mr P J Bradley: I apologise for not being present earlier, but I was attending a Business Committee meeting. Therefore, I have not heard the theme of the debate.
When the motion was first tabled, I obtained copies of the Committee’s reports on its inquiries, and also the document ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ in which the Committee made 16 recommendations. I imagine that Mr Savage revisited much of that during his remarks.
At that time we were awaiting the outcome of the Competition Commission’s inquiry. It found no evidence of price-rigging or collusion between retailers. Perhaps Members are suspicious by nature; we still thought that there might be something there, but the wheels that were put in motion could find no evidence of it, so we had to accept that.
Farmers are blaming part of their downward spiral on retailers’ charges, as their profits are not in line with the farmers’ profits. Farmers are working for nil profit, and shareholders in large multinationals would not live with that. We are victims of that.
Many concerns have been expressed about farmers, and I ask the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to take a step back and look at where the House could be heading and what that would mean for the farming community.
Over the past three or four years we have heard many cries from the heart about the farmers’ plight. We met lobby groups; we met many farmers on the steps of Stormont; we visited farms to hear their plight at first hand; we listened to farmers’ unions; and we pledged 100% support. However, any thought of collapse of the institutions will not back up our support. I ask Committee members to search their souls, in the interests of the industry, to see if that is what they really want. I will fight tooth and nail to save the institutions, in the interests of the farming and rural communities. Perhaps I am drifting slightly from the motion, but this is all interlinked. We want farming for the future, and a future for farming. I did not hear the wording of the motion, but I support it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I pay tribute to the Members from the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin who have found it worthwhile to come to the House to debate the state of the agriculture industry. I regret that the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and his two party Colleagues on the Committee have not thought it worthwhile to come to the debate. They purport to be concerned about the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland, but their actions have spoken louder than their words.
The motion calls on me to establish a fair price commission to examine the distribution of profits in the agrifood sector. I am fully aware of the many challenges that the agrifood sector has faced in recent years, and the impact that these have had on producers and the rural community. I spend a great deal of time in that community, and I know everything about it. I am not a farmer, but in the past three years I have learnt a great deal about the difficult situation in which the farmers find themselves.
Moreover, the problems that we have discussed today are not unique to Northern Ireland. Producers throughout the British Isles are voicing similar concerns. I agree that, for some time, farmers have not been achieving a reasonable return on their investment and labour. However, it is vital that goods be produced in response to consumer demand and at a price that others are willing to pay in order to succeed in today’s market environment. In so doing, buyers and sellers have a right to operate in a market that is free from anti-competitive behaviour and abuse of power.
Mr Savage and other Members will be aware that ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer’ pointed out that excess profits do not seem to be generated by processors or retailers. That report was published as a result of research that was carried out at the behest of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. In addition, a report published by the UK Competition Commission — formerly the Office of Fair Trading — also concluded that retailers were not making excessive profits. Therefore, a simple redistribution of profit will not solve the problem, even if I had the power to bring that about.
Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the regulation of anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominant positions in the market are reserved matters. The motion does not fall within the gift of this devolved Administration. It is asking me to do something that I do not have the power to do.
In the light of that, we must examine other ways of addressing the issue. First, an integrated food chain must be developed so that there is clear communication of market demand and greater understanding of, and trust between, the links in the chain. Secondly, we must try to move away from producing under-differentiated products, which are subject to severe price competition. We must position ourselves elsewhere in the market where issues such as quality, safety, production methods and reliability as business partners assume greater prominence.
In view of investigations into the distribution of profits in the food chain, I am not sure what more a fair price commission would achieve. I thank Mr Dallat for his comments because, as he and Mr McHugh pointed out, there are concerns about whether such a commission would be toothless and powerless to deal with the issues. Given that competition is a reserved matter, it would be toothless and powerless.
I am also concerned that, as Mr Dallat pointed out, such a commission would create a further layer of bureaucracy for little gain. I would be the first person to be criticised heavily for wasting resources on useless administration for a toothless commission. Therefore, I remain unconvinced of the merits of the proposal.
When I took up the post of Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, I recognised the need to develop a strategic approach. I am putting the finishing touches to the vision action plan. I was surprised by the accusation made by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Savage, that the Department has been putting obstacles in the way of farmers. Since I became Minister, all my endeavours have been aimed at ensuring that farming becomes a viable economic livelihood. However, I cannot achieve that overnight; it must be done strategically.
The initiative, which started over three years ago, will achieve real outcomes and will allow the industry, in partnership with Government, to address the real problems that it faces. I emphasise that it must be done in partnership with Government, because the Department alone will not deliver the strategy. I hope soon to announce the action plan for the modernisation of my Department. One purpose of the plan is to ensure that the interface between customers and the farming community is as effective as possible.
We should proceed by working together and focusing on the issues that are within my power as Minister. Nevertheless, all the links in the food chain must realise that they depend on one another for survival, and that they all must share in the profits. I am aware of, and share, the concerns of the farming community. Farmers are at the bottom of the food chain, and they cannot pass on the costs that are passed down to them. There must be co-operation down the chain.
As Mr Dallat pointed out, I am anxious to enable that. I cannot force it, but as Minister I am most anxious to enable that partnership to happen, for that trust to be built, and to ensure that everyone in the food chain secures the profit that he or she deserves, and a fair share of the profits of the industry.

Mr George Savage: The Minister summed up the issue in her last few sentences when she said that she realised that there was a problem — that problem must be resolved. She said that she may not have the power, but at least she has the power of persuasion in her Department. That can be a mighty tool if used properly.
We all know that I would not move such a motion unnecessarily. I thank all the Members for taking the time to show an interest in what is happening in the agrisector, for the problem is real. It is hard for milk producers, for example, to see their product in a supermarket selling at double or treble the price that they got for it. That is not on. I do not know what we can do to resolve the problem, but I know one thing for sure — farmers cannot continue to produce for nothing. They are quite happy to produce if they receive a reasonable return, but there is a certain pride in the farming community. They have worked and cut back. Northern Ireland farmers are as efficient as any in Europe, and yet we are being ripped off right, left and centre. As soon as beef or milk leaves farmers’ yards, the gulls are ready to dive for the profits. They all live off the farmer, and he receives nothing in return.
The situation is beyond belief. As we discuss the issue, another meeting is taking place on the other side of Belfast. A few things could solve the whole problem — an extra 3p or 4p a litre on milk; 3p or 4p a dozen on eggs; and the same sum on pigs. It all boils down to greed. We should not pussyfoot around; we should call it for what it is.
We must sort out the matter. I do not know how that is to be done, but one thing is certain: if those people cannot get their act together, there will be no farmers left. I do not want to see the agriculture industry going the way of the shipyard in Belfast.

Ms Jane Morrice: Under Standing Order 25(4), a vote cannot be taken if a quorum is not present, which is the case at the moment. I shall, therefore, ask the Clerk to ring the Division Bell and wait three minutes to see whether I can put the question.

Mr John Dallat: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it reasonable for people to turn up for a vote when they did not take the trouble to listen to the debate to make sound judgement on the issue before the House?

Ms Jane Morrice: It is indeed reasonable, Mr Dallat. I thank you for your question, but you are as aware as I am of Standing Orders, and a vote cannot take place without a quorum in the Chamber.

Mr John Dallat: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was not the point that I was making. Will those who may come clamouring to the sound of the Division Bell be able to make sound judgement on what was discussed here? They did not take the trouble to turn up for the debate.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am acting under Standing Orders; it is not for the Deputy Speaker to decide what is reasonable or not.

Mr P J Bradley: What is the view of the mover of the motion? Does he wish to put the matter to a vote or is he satisfied that he has delivered his message?

Ms Jane Morrice: As Mr Savage has not indicated that, it would be impossible for me to say. However, perhaps he wishes to say whether he wishes a vote at this late stage.

Mr George Savage: Mr Deputy Speaker, what Mr Dallat and Mr Bradley have said is true. When Members are not present in the Chamber, do we expect them to vote on something that they know nothing about and have not taken part in? I am satisfied that the Members who were present put their points across.

Ms Jane Morrice: I understand, Mr Savage, that you are not begging leave to withdraw the motion. Unless there is a quorum, I will ask the Clerk to ring the Division Bell.
I understand that there is now a quorum. Therefore, I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the disastrous situation of agriculture in Northern Ireland and urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish a Fair Price Commission with one of its principal functions being to investigate the distribution of profits within the Agri-Food sector.
Adjourned at 1.36 pm.